The lawsuit is in question is like a drunk driving victims family suing shell for providing the gas in the car.

If those manufacturers and vendors were held liable for misuse of their products, they would all go out of business. You don't need to outlaw guns, you simply sue the manufacturers out of business.

I honestly haven't spent a lot of time studying the pros and cons of holding arm manufactures liable. My initial response is to not throw out the idea completely as I am prone to compare gun manufacturers to the tobacco industry, admittedly an imperfect comparison. On the other hand, we have let lawsuits against the tobacco industry go forward yet they still seem to be around. Thus I can't imagine that allowing some lawsuits against gun manufacturers will mean the death knell for the gun industry.

Tobacco is a product that, if used as intended, can cause harm without breaking the law.

Other than situations such as suicide, self defense and accidents, guns don't cause harm without breaking the law. If you proceed down that path, knife, axe, and hammer manufacturers should be liable for the their products being used in the commission of a crime.

Thinking a bit more on the idea of suing gun manufacturers. Isn't it odd, that the gun industry is legislatively shielded from any lawsuits? I mean, that is kind of unusual. What other industry enjoys that kind of legal protection. Normally the system is supposed to let the courts decide whether there is legal grounds for a lawsuit to go forward. If the idea that a shooting victim can hold the gun manufacturer liable is totally without merit, shouldn't the courts make that determination, like they do with other lawsuits against other types of products? Like I said, just thinking...

Because zealots like the Brady Bunch will support frivilous lawsuits until the they win one. Read the article, the victims family (who I feel for), sued an ammunition vendor for selling legally selling ammo to a piece of shit. If he used a knife, would they be suing the manufacturer?

To add- To my knowledge, they didn't sue the mental health professionals or his parents, just the firearms industry. This was about sending a message to the firearms industry and/or putting this vendor out of business. Lawsuit was supported by the Brady group.

The lawsuit is in question is like a drunk driving victims family suing shell for providing the gas in the car.

If those manufacturers and vendors were held liable for misuse of their products, they would all go out of business. You don't need to outlaw guns, you simply sue the manufacturers out of business.

I honestly haven't spent a lot of time studying the pros and cons of holding arm manufactures liable. My initial response is to not throw out the idea completely as I am prone to compare gun manufacturers to the tobacco industry, admittedly an imperfect comparison. On the other hand, we have let lawsuits against the tobacco industry go forward yet they still seem to be around. Thus I can't imagine that allowing some lawsuits against gun manufacturers will mean the death knell for the gun industry.

Tobacco is a product that, if used as intended, can cause harm without breaking the law.

Other than situations such as suicide, self defense and accidents, guns don't cause harm without breaking the law. If you proceed down that path, knife, axe, and hammer manufacturers should be liable for the their products being used in the commission of a crime.

Yes, what you say is true, which is why I said the comparison was imperfect.

The lawsuit is in question is like a drunk driving victims family suing shell for providing the gas in the car.

If those manufacturers and vendors were held liable for misuse of their products, they would all go out of business. You don't need to outlaw guns, you simply sue the manufacturers out of business.

I honestly haven't spent a lot of time studying the pros and cons of holding arm manufactures liable. My initial response is to not throw out the idea completely as I am prone to compare gun manufacturers to the tobacco industry, admittedly an imperfect comparison. On the other hand, we have let lawsuits against the tobacco industry go forward yet they still seem to be around. Thus I can't imagine that allowing some lawsuits against gun manufacturers will mean the death knell for the gun industry.

Tobacco is a product that, if used as intended, can cause harm without breaking the law.

Other than situations such as suicide, self defense and accidents, guns don't cause harm without breaking the law. If you proceed down that path, knife, axe, and hammer manufacturers should be liable for the their products being used in the commission of a crime.

Not necessarily true. Firearm manufactures can't be sued for criminal use, but can and have been successfully sued for guns malfunctioning i.e. exploding in the hands of the operator and injuring them.

Tobacco is a product that, if used as intended, can cause harm without breaking the law.

Other than situations such as suicide, self defense and accidents, guns don't cause harm without breaking the law. If you proceed down that path, knife, axe, and hammer manufacturers should be liable for the their products being used in the commission of a crime.

Not necessarily true. Firearm manufactures can't be sued for criminal use, but can and have been successfully sued for guns malfunctioning i.e. exploding in the hands of the operator and injuring them.

I was referring to a properly functioning firearm and/or ammunition. I don't believe they are shielded from malfunctioning products, nor should they be.

The lawsuit is in question is like a drunk driving victims family suing shell for providing the gas in the car.

If those manufacturers and vendors were held liable for misuse of their products, they would all go out of business. You don't need to outlaw guns, you simply sue the manufacturers out of business.

I honestly haven't spent a lot of time studying the pros and cons of holding arm manufactures liable. My initial response is to not throw out the idea completely as I am prone to compare gun manufacturers to the tobacco industry, admittedly an imperfect comparison. On the other hand, we have let lawsuits against the tobacco industry go forward yet they still seem to be around. Thus I can't imagine that allowing some lawsuits against gun manufacturers will mean the death knell for the gun industry.

Tobacco is a product that, if used as intended, can cause harm without breaking the law.

Other than situations such as suicide, self defense and accidents, guns don't cause harm without breaking the law. If you proceed down that path, knife, axe, and hammer manufacturers should be liable for the their products being used in the commission of a crime.

Yes, what you say is true, which is why I said the comparison was imperfect.

Firearms manufacturers CAN be sued just like any other company.

If I buy a gun, load it with the appropriate ammo, point it at a paper target and pull the trigger and the gun explodes in my hand, I can sue the gun/ammo maker for selling a faulty, dangerous product. They are not shielded from that.

If I load a gun, take it to a liquor store and shoot the cashier, nobody can sue the gun/ammo maker for that.

I think it is awesome that gun manufacturers are shielded in this way. I think all manufacturers should be.

For example, I heard in passing (I don't know if its true) that Paul Walker's family is suing Porsche for making a car that is too fast and dangerous. Porsche should be shielded from that suit.

If Paul Walker died because the brakes on the Porsche were manufactured incorrectly, that's a different story.

Tobacco is a product that, if used as intended, can cause harm without breaking the law.

Other than situations such as suicide, self defense and accidents, guns don't cause harm without breaking the law. If you proceed down that path, knife, axe, and hammer manufacturers should be liable for the their products being used in the commission of a crime.

Not necessarily true. Firearm manufactures can't be sued for criminal use, but can and have been successfully sued for guns malfunctioning i.e. exploding in the hands of the operator and injuring them.

I was referring to a properly functioning firearm and/or ammunition. I don't believe they are shielded from malfunctioning products, nor should they be.

For years, the tobacco industry claimed they shouldn't be sued for delivering a product that did what is was supposed to do. Yet eventually the states were able to sue to industry (and settled out of court) for essentially the societal harm that tobacco created. Yes, I'm definitely oversimplifying the situation and once again the gun-tobacco comparison is imperfect, but it does show an example of how an industry could be held responsible for the products they produced.

And once again, shouldn't the decision for whether a lawsuit proceeds be determined by the merits of the actual case in court instead of a preemptive legislative shield?

Tobacco is a product that, if used as intended, can cause harm without breaking the law.

Other than situations such as suicide, self defense and accidents, guns don't cause harm without breaking the law. If you proceed down that path, knife, axe, and hammer manufacturers should be liable for the their products being used in the commission of a crime.

Not necessarily true. Firearm manufactures can't be sued for criminal use, but can and have been successfully sued for guns malfunctioning i.e. exploding in the hands of the operator and injuring them.

I was referring to a properly functioning firearm and/or ammunition. I don't believe they are shielded from malfunctioning products, nor should they be.

For years, the tobacco industry claimed they shouldn't be sued for delivering a product that did what is was supposed to do. Yet eventually the states were able to sue to industry (and settled out of court) for essentially the societal harm that tobacco created. Yes, I'm definitely oversimplifying the situation and once again the gun-tobacco comparison is imperfect, but it does show an example of how an industry could be held responsible for the products they produced.

And once again, shouldn't the decision for whether a lawsuit proceeds be determined by the merits of the actual case in court instead of a preemptive legislative shield?

No. Lawyers are incapable of self policing. This case never should have been taken.

Note the family and the defendant in this case are the ones suffering. Not the lawyers and not the Brady group who championed the case. The defendant is owed hundreds of thousands in legal fees on a suit that never should have happened. How many small business owners can afford to defend against a suit like that? Even if they are repaid, it will be years.

Not all lawyers are unethical, but the ones who are can do outsized damage.

Ignorance is one of the reasons marijuana is still illegal (and illegal to begin with).

Feinstein, one of the most vocal gun control advocates, continues to fight marijuana despite facts and public opinion to the contrary.

I assume she applies a similar level of thought to her gun control positions. People like her are how bad laws get on the books and stay there. Not just referring to guns.

MW

I'm a firearms owner in Calif and Feinstein's et al's desire for banning certain types of firearms or limiting magazine capacity has always been reactionary to any mass shooting - regardless of the types of weapons or magazine capacities used in those shooting or in crimees in general.

Most people who have limited experience with firearms dont understand that it is absolutely useless to ban those weapons or limit mag capacity to prevent mass shooting. That these aren't military style weapons at all regardless of what they look like, that they function no different than any semi auto handgun, and that limiting magazine capacity doesn't slow down a mass shooter who carries multiple magazines or speed loaders (for revolvers) for almost continuous firing with only a second or less between reloading a new mag/speedloader, or even carrying multiple loaded firearms that they shoot and drop once empty. Anyone with even limited firearms experience and a handgun and multiple 5 round magazines capacity can fire off the same amount of ammo, in just about the same amount of time, as an AR-15 with an expanded magazine capacity. It's even easier with a handgun because you can carry several along with many extra mags concealed under your clothes . Hard to carry a concealed AR-15 or 3. Someone with a pump action shotgun that holds multiple rounds and knows how to reload on the fly while shooting(very easy) can do even more damage.

So banning certain types of firearms or limiting magazine capacity will make no difference in the event of mass shootings and is an unreasonable and uneducated response by politicians. Just my 2 cents ...now back to my popcorn ;).

The anti-gun politicians know this, though, right?...I mean they have to. They also know that they can't start the process without toppling the first domino, which in this case is the assault rifle with expanded mag.

Now, I am not saying the gun control people in this thread believe this. They are probably well meaning. However, the Bloomberg's, Soros's, Brady's etc of the world do hold these attitudes.

Diane Feinstein said on CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

This is the second time in this thread that someone has taken this very quote radically out of context to try to prove a shadowy conspiracy of people wanting to ban all guns. It's still as dishonest as when moonshadow was doing it.

It wasn't dishonest when I did it either. I included that quote in a huge list of quotes to display that those opposed to guns generally did exist, and that they held positions of political power. You pointed out that this one, in particular, was out of context; which I acknowledged was true. That did not, however, overturn my point; because if the other 10 or 12 quotes were out of context, you would have made it your life's work to demonstrate that to be so. But you did not, because you could not. We have, together, already established that this particular quote is often taken out of context; as is the Gandi quote. That doesn't make his point any less valid than my own. You are a deep ideologue, GuitarStv, who is not only willfully ignorant of the true & present nature of guns & gun regulations; but one that isn't interested in a rational conversation, nor have you ever been engaged in this debate in good faith for the stretch of this thread. What you are, GuitarStv, is an eloquent troll. You are subtle & well spoken, but a troll nonetheless. If I had any faith that the moderators held the capacity to see this nuance in your posts, I'd report you. Such as it is, it's not worth the effort; but your opinion means nothing at all, because ours' means nothing at all to you.

I stopped researching your quotes after the first two or three all turned out to be either complete fabrications, or taken out of context. You earlier admitted that you didn't research any of the quotes made in your posts, you were just dumping the results of idyll googling. That's intellectually dishonest, and (as demonstrated by Winkeyman doing the exact same) common to the pro gun side's debating tactics.

Please read my post #731

People like you say "Nobody wants to ban and take away your guns."

The Diane Feinstein quote we are referencing is not hard to understand. What you have there (in context) is a powerful Senator who champions gun control legislation. You have her saying that she was unable to get a total ban and confiscation on "assault weapons." However, if she could have gotten the votes, she would have done a total ban and confiscation of "assault weapons" and made Mr. and Ms. America turn 'em all in. Most of the firearms I own would fall under such a ban.

In Australia (and other countries), the government DID ban and confiscate and destroy most guns. Powerful American liberals say they wants our gun regulations to look more like Australia.

I spend a lot of time in Scotland and have friends there that are gun owners. The government there DID ban and confiscate most of their guns. Powerful American liberals say they want our gun regulations to look more like the UK's.

Powerful people in the US government and many voters would like to, if they have the votes, ban and confiscate most of my guns.

So how can you tell me "nobody wants to ban and take away your guns" and then say I am dishonest and lack context?

What if John Smith (and this is the case for many people) only own two guns, a Glock with "high capacity" magazines and an AR-15. If our gun laws looked like the UK, or Australia, or Diane Feinstein's version of America, then it is correct to say that powerful people want to ban and take away ALL of John Smith's guns.

You are the one who lacks context. You are the one who is being dishonest.

Me: People want to ban and confiscate my guns.You: LIAR! DISHONEST! YOU TAKE THINGS OUT OF CONTEXT! THEY ONLY WANT TO BAN AND CONFISCATE MOST OF THEM! THEY DONT WANT TO TAKE AWAY YOUR REVOLVERS AND BOLT ACTION RIFLES (yet)!

What a laughable response.

Seems to me that both sides are prone to some over-simplification. Yeah, I'm sure there are some extreme anti-gun activists that would like to take away most or all guns. On the other hand, most people in favor of gun control are not nearly so extreme and as far as I know there is no even semi-realistic plan or policy proposal to come and take away people's guns. Even Feinsteins desired ban on 'assault weapons' would likely not involve requiring people to surrender the existing weapons they have. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that wasn't part of the previous ban on the AK-15 was it. That ban allowed existing owners to keep their weapons. Educate me on the Australian gun control that folks talk about. I understand that gun buybacks were part of the way that they reduced the number of existing guns, but that was voluntary, wasn't it, not confiscation?

I think what GuitarStv meant was the nobody wants to take away ALL your guns. The examples you provide

There are absolutely extreme propositions attempted -- however they haven't passed. While I agree that there has been no legislation attempting to "ban all guns" (obviously unconstitutional as well as political suicide), there are definite attempts at massive restrictions with no legitimate basis other than "these guns look scary." Example:

Notice how they want to ban firearms that have threaded barrels. Why? Because so many crimes are committed using suppressors (which are already federally regulated)? What about barrel shrouds? Is a handgun more dangerous with one? Even better, the Armalite M15 22LR Carbine - restricted because it looks scary, but is really just a .22 rifle (much like the Ruger 10/22, which is exempted)?

Too many comments to individually reply to after I logged off yesterday. I'll try to address the various things I read...

One doesn't have to be an expert one a particular area to be able to have some level of say in regards to what is taught their children in schools. That doesn't mean it makes sense to get deep down in the weeds about the more advanced details, but I have enough understanding to say that I agree with what Winkey espouses for elementary level teaching about guns. Kind of like how it is not unreasonable for an adult who got a D in History to legitimately opine that schools should teach about the American Revolution.

Moonshadow and possibly others seem to think that my argument against the idea that there is an inherent right to self-defense that is an ultimate trump card to beat down gun regulation implies that I think there is not already any gun regulation. That is false. Of course there is regulation. In the last few days while address the inherent rights argument, I've tried very hard to NOT give an opinion either for or against existing or further regulation. The AR-15 posts were NOT meant to say that the AR-15 should be banned but started as an example from a list that Winkey provided as an intellectual exercise to determine whether the prior ban on AR-15s was an unreasonable infringement on a assumed right to self-defense. As it stands, I'm not convinced it was. Moonshadow seems to argue that a person should be able to choose ANY weapon they want for self-defense and that the removal of any weapon from the list of options is a violation of his right to self-defense. Yet Guitarstv's examples showed that even Moonshadow acknowledges that some weapons should not be available. Thus it is not a matter of WHETHER there can be restrictions, but rather on WHAT restrictions are reasonable. Determining WHAT restrictions is the difficult point and the devil is in the details and I freely admit that my limited knowledge about guns makes me a poor advocate for opining on those details. Even so, I believe that I have effectively demonstrated that at least in regards to SOME regulations, the argument that they should be rejected merely based on the right to self-defense is irrational.

That was not my point. My point was that you get the order of the matter backwards. Since we, as in society, are starting from the position that self-defense is a human right, the benefits of limitations have to be justified to all concerned from a position of reason and knowledge. Your position, from the start, was that I (the self-defender in this context) had to justify to society the benefits of my choices of tools. I don't accept the extreme arguments of backpack nukes or landmines, because anyone rational can see the net social benefits of restrictions to these choices. You chose the AR-15 as your example weapon, because it was part of the assualt weapons ban, and we pointed out (quite well, I believe) why the weapons included in that ban were arbitrary from an educated perspective. I'm not expecting you to actually defend banning the AR-15, I was trying to highlight the fact that your side of the debate is ignorant to the details that are actually worth discussing.

If I understand your post correctly, then, you do agree that if an argument could be made that banning the AR-15 was a benefit to society, such an argument would not be trumped by the fact that it limited your right to self-defense?

Not just any simple benefit to society, but a significant net benefit for all parties concerned, including gun owners themselves. If you could do that, I'd seriously take it under consideration, and I think that most pro-gun people would also. However, keep in mind that we have been burned by this on several occasions; as the promised benefits either never materialized, or were never offered to begin with.

The lawsuit is in question is like a drunk driving victims family suing shell for providing the gas in the car.

If those manufacturers and vendors were held liable for misuse of their products, they would all go out of business. You don't need to outlaw guns, you simply sue the manufacturers out of business.

I honestly haven't spent a lot of time studying the pros and cons of holding arm manufactures liable. My initial response is to not throw out the idea completely as I am prone to compare gun manufacturers to the tobacco industry, admittedly an imperfect comparison. On the other hand, we have let lawsuits against the tobacco industry go forward yet they still seem to be around. Thus I can't imagine that allowing some lawsuits against gun manufacturers will mean the death knell for the gun industry.

Thinking a bit more on the idea of suing gun manufacturers. Isn't it odd, that the gun industry is legislatively shielded from any lawsuits? I mean, that is kind of unusual. What other industry enjoys that kind of legal protection. Normally the system is supposed to let the courts decide whether there is legal grounds for a lawsuit to go forward. If the idea that a shooting victim can hold the gun manufacturer liable is totally without merit, shouldn't the courts make that determination, like they do with other lawsuits against other types of products? Like I said, just thinking...

The lawsuit is in question is like a drunk driving victims family suing shell for providing the gas in the car.

If those manufacturers and vendors were held liable for misuse of their products, they would all go out of business. You don't need to outlaw guns, you simply sue the manufacturers out of business.

I honestly haven't spent a lot of time studying the pros and cons of holding arm manufactures liable. My initial response is to not throw out the idea completely as I am prone to compare gun manufacturers to the tobacco industry, admittedly an imperfect comparison. On the other hand, we have let lawsuits against the tobacco industry go forward yet they still seem to be around. Thus I can't imagine that allowing some lawsuits against gun manufacturers will mean the death knell for the gun industry.

Thinking a bit more on the idea of suing gun manufacturers. Isn't it odd, that the gun industry is legislatively shielded from any lawsuits? I mean, that is kind of unusual. What other industry enjoys that kind of legal protection. Normally the system is supposed to let the courts decide whether there is legal grounds for a lawsuit to go forward. If the idea that a shooting victim can hold the gun manufacturer liable is totally without merit, shouldn't the courts make that determination, like they do with other lawsuits against other types of products? Like I said, just thinking...

Robinsonís husband Michael Johnson died in 1996 at age of 36 from lung cancer, and in her lawsuit against R.J. Reynolds, she and her attorneys argued that the company was aware that cigarettes were addictive and caused lung cancer, but was negligent in telling smokers like Johnson about those risks.

I don't think any gun manufacturers are claiming that misuse of their products won't cause injury or death. Actually, if you read the owners manuals, you will likely find the exact opposite. The tobacco industry has a long history of glamorizing tobacco use and downplaying the health detriments.

I got my first rifle on my 12th birthday. That's over 20 years ago now, and I (nor anyone else) have yet to suffer any negative effects. Normal use of firearms will not cause injury. Normal use of tobacco can.

The founding fathers reinforced our citizen's right to bear arms with the 2nd amendment for use against any entity (more specifically governments.) We have sat comfortably under the shield of a very well armed populace for a very long time. It bothers me that these discussions always break down to hunting & defense against criminals. The number of fatalities related to hunting, accidents and criminal behavior is nothing when compared to what governments, our included, have done to unarmed populations.

At the end of the day, even if the US military were somehow wiped out in an instant, there is no example of a more difficult country to take over or eliminate than the modern United States.

If you feel that there is no scenario that exists in modern times of a government invading a sovereign nation, stealing it's resources, subjugating it's population and claiming it's soil for it's own, than you truly are an ignorant liability on the rest of us.

If I understand your post correctly, then, you do agree that if an argument could be made that banning the AR-15 was a benefit to society, such an argument would not be trumped by the fact that it limited your right to self-defense?

You do understand correctly. Banning a single weapon platform does not inherently remove the ability for a person to defend themselves. I'm not sure why no one is understanding your argument. Both sides agree on this point, but continue to disagree that they agree. It's glorious. :D

Theoretically, at some point that argument must fail though, or it could be used to argue individually for each and every weapon to be banned. Though, that's perhaps the process that we're using; weighing the societal costs of each firearm class against the individual right to property and self defense. AR-15 style weapons seem to be the fulcrum of see-saw at the moment. They were banned, then they weren't, now some places are looking at restricting them again. Small-pox Bazookas are on one end of the scale (no one owns one) and black powder weapons (you can buy them through the mail without any background check or paperwork) are on the other end.

If I understand your post correctly, then, you do agree that if an argument could be made that banning the AR-15 was a benefit to society, such an argument would not be trumped by the fact that it limited your right to self-defense?

You do understand correctly. Banning a single weapon platform does not inherently remove the ability for a person to defend themselves. I'm not sure why no one is understanding your argument. Both sides agree on this point, but continue to disagree that they agree. It's glorious. :D

Theoretically, at some point that argument must fail though, or it could be used to argue individually for each and every weapon to be banned. Though, that's perhaps the process that we're using; weighing the societal costs of each firearm class against the individual right to property and self defense. AR-15 style weapons seem to be the fulcrum of see-saw at the moment. They were banned, then they weren't, now some places are looking at restricting them again. Small-pox Bazookas are on one end of the scale (no one owns one) and black powder weapons (you can buy them through the mail without any background check or paperwork) are on the other end.

The entire assault weapons ban is based on a fallacy. Rifles as a percentage of total firearm homicides went up year over year during the first four years of the assault weapons ban that was signed in 1994. Rifles averaged 4.87% of total firearm murders during the years of the ban (1995-2004) and have averaged 3.88% in the years since it expired (2005-2014). Murders committed by rifle averaged 486 in the years during the ban and have averaged 359 in the years after the ban expired.

I'm not going to sit here and say that obviously more guns make us safer. There is indeed a correlation there, but not necessarily causation. By the same token, there is no statistical evidence that proves an assault weapons ban inherently makes us safer. We do not have a ban in effect and rifle homicide in 2014 was at it's lowest point in 19 years. Homicide by rifle as a percentage of total firearm homicides was also at it's lowest point in 19 years. You cannot, and should not, argue that an assault weapons ban will make us safer because the data doesn't support that notion. Not in the slightest.

I think it's been posted several times already, but the reason we don't have good research on this topic is that gun advocates have helped to block funding for good research. I think that we all would agree that removing this roadblock would be beneficial for the debate.

Realistically, the only weapons ban that would have a material impact on safety would be an ownership ban of handguns. This would be problematic for several reasons, such as how to confiscate a zillion guns, the fact that it does represent a very real restriction on ability to defend one's self (not practical to carry a shotgun everywhere) and would be politically unfeasible.

I, for the life of me, can't figure out the desperation to ban so-called "assault weapons".

The only things I can come up with are:

-Desperate to exert control by taking something away-Desperate to look like they're "doing something" even though it doesn't really do anything-Genuine fear based on ignorance of capabilities and statistics-One step towards a larger goal of disarmament

I think it's been posted several times already, but the reason we don't have good research on this topic is that gun advocates have helped to block funding for good research. I think that we all would agree that removing this roadblock would be beneficial for the debate.

Blocked funding for government research. Not good research. Good research exists, and is published. Most extensive research ever done on the topic in the world.

If I understand your post correctly, then, you do agree that if an argument could be made that banning the AR-15 was a benefit to society, such an argument would not be trumped by the fact that it limited your right to self-defense?

You do understand correctly. Banning a single weapon platform does not inherently remove the ability for a person to defend themselves. I'm not sure why no one is understanding your argument. Both sides agree on this point, but continue to disagree that they agree. It's glorious. :D

Theoretically, at some point that argument must fail though, or it could be used to argue individually for each and every weapon to be banned. Though, that's perhaps the process that we're using; weighing the societal costs of each firearm class against the individual right to property and self defense. AR-15 style weapons seem to be the fulcrum of see-saw at the moment. They were banned, then they weren't, now some places are looking at restricting them again. Small-pox Bazookas are on one end of the scale (no one owns one) and black powder weapons (you can buy them through the mail without any background check or paperwork) are on the other end.

The entire assault weapons ban is based on a fallacy. Rifles as a percentage of total firearm homicides went up year over year during the first four years of the assault weapons ban that was signed in 1994. Rifles averaged 4.87% of total firearm murders during the years of the ban (1995-2004) and have averaged 3.88% in the years since it expired (2005-2014). Murders committed by rifle averaged 486 in the years during the ban and have averaged 359 in the years after the ban expired.

I'm not going to sit here and say that obviously more guns make us safer. There is indeed a correlation there, but not necessarily causation. By the same token, there is no statistical evidence that proves an assault weapons ban inherently makes us safer. We do not have a ban in effect and rifle homicide in 2014 was at it's lowest point in 19 years. Homicide by rifle as a percentage of total firearm homicides was also at it's lowest point in 19 years. You cannot, and should not, argue that an assault weapons ban will make us safer because the data doesn't support that notion. Not in the slightest.

I think it's been posted several times already, but the reason we don't have good research on this topic is that gun advocates have helped to block funding for good research. I think that we all would agree that removing this roadblock would be beneficial for the debate.

Blocked funding for government research. Not good research. Good research exists, and is published. Most extensive research ever done on the topic in the world.

I think it's been posted several times already, but the reason we don't have good research on this topic is that gun advocates have helped to block funding for good research. I think that we all would agree that removing this roadblock would be beneficial for the debate.

Blocked funding for government research. Not good research. Good research exists, and is published. Most extensive research ever done on the topic in the world.

Not true, the data now comes ONLY from biased sources.

A bias does not render a source 'not good'. All sources are biased, especially government funded ones. The Repubs recognize that such a bias would be contrary to their objectives, so they block it. So what? They can't block privately funded research. Let Bloomberg spend his own money for the 'best' biased research he can afford.

I think it's been posted several times already, but the reason we don't have good research on this topic is that gun advocates have helped to block funding for good research. I think that we all would agree that removing this roadblock would be beneficial for the debate.

Blocked funding for government research. Not good research. Good research exists, and is published. Most extensive research ever done on the topic in the world.

Not true, the data now comes ONLY from biased sources.

A bias does not render a source 'not good'. All sources are biased, especially government funded ones. The Repubs recognize that such a bias would be contrary to their objectives, so they block it. So what? They can't block privately funded research. Let Bloomberg spend his own money for the 'best' biased research he can afford.Governmental funded data has been shown to have the least bias as a whole and bias can/does make data not good. To remove that shows a lack of wanting accurate knowledge.

If I understand your post correctly, then, you do agree that if an argument could be made that banning the AR-15 was a benefit to society, such an argument would not be trumped by the fact that it limited your right to self-defense?

You do understand correctly. Banning a single weapon platform does not inherently remove the ability for a person to defend themselves. I'm not sure why no one is understanding your argument. Both sides agree on this point, but continue to disagree that they agree. It's glorious. :D

Theoretically, at some point that argument must fail though, or it could be used to argue individually for each and every weapon to be banned. Though, that's perhaps the process that we're using; weighing the societal costs of each firearm class against the individual right to property and self defense. AR-15 style weapons seem to be the fulcrum of see-saw at the moment. They were banned, then they weren't, now some places are looking at restricting them again. Small-pox Bazookas are on one end of the scale (no one owns one) and black powder weapons (you can buy them through the mail without any background check or paperwork) are on the other end.

The entire assault weapons ban is based on a fallacy. Rifles as a percentage of total firearm homicides went up year over year during the first four years of the assault weapons ban that was signed in 1994. Rifles averaged 4.87% of total firearm murders during the years of the ban (1995-2004) and have averaged 3.88% in the years since it expired (2005-2014). Murders committed by rifle averaged 486 in the years during the ban and have averaged 359 in the years after the ban expired.

I'm not going to sit here and say that obviously more guns make us safer. There is indeed a correlation there, but not necessarily causation. By the same token, there is no statistical evidence that proves an assault weapons ban inherently makes us safer. We do not have a ban in effect and rifle homicide in 2014 was at it's lowest point in 19 years. Homicide by rifle as a percentage of total firearm homicides was also at it's lowest point in 19 years. You cannot, and should not, argue that an assault weapons ban will make us safer because the data doesn't support that notion. Not in the slightest.

That is interesting because I had always heard the opposite.

It's all still within the margins of error. The total murder rate was in flux for the entire period that the AWB was in effect, and there was/is too much volatility to definitively say that the differences mean anything statistically significant. So it could have been argued in either direction; but in any case, the AWB certainly didn't make a large impact one way or the other, so it wasn't even worth the monetary costs of implementation, much less the total personal effects upon those who could no longer buy them for a reasonable (or legal) cost.

I think it's been posted several times already, but the reason we don't have good research on this topic is that gun advocates have helped to block funding for good research. I think that we all would agree that removing this roadblock would be beneficial for the debate.

Blocked funding for government research. Not good research. Good research exists, and is published. Most extensive research ever done on the topic in the world.

Not true, the data now comes ONLY from biased sources.

A bias does not render a source 'not good'. All sources are biased, especially government funded ones. The Repubs recognize that such a bias would be contrary to their objectives, so they block it. So what? They can't block privately funded research. Let Bloomberg spend his own money for the 'best' biased research he can afford.

Governmental funded data has been shown to have the least bias as a whole and bias can/does make data not good. To remove that shows a lack of wanting accurate knowledge.

In general, yes. With regard to politically charged subjects, no. That kind of bias research includes topics such as research into the biology of Kentucky Bluegrasses & the natural range of the American Cardinal; not exactly emotionally pr politically charged issues.

I think it's been posted several times already, but the reason we don't have good research on this topic is that gun advocates have helped to block funding for good research. I think that we all would agree that removing this roadblock would be beneficial for the debate.

Blocked funding for government research. Not good research. Good research exists, and is published. Most extensive research ever done on the topic in the world.

Not true, the data now comes ONLY from biased sources.

A bias does not render a source 'not good'. All sources are biased, especially government funded ones. The Repubs recognize that such a bias would be contrary to their objectives, so they block it. So what? They can't block privately funded research. Let Bloomberg spend his own money for the 'best' biased research he can afford.

Could you explain your claim that all research funded by the US government is biased against gun ownership?

Privately funded research is expensive, and the people who sell guns have much more money than the people who wonder if guns should be sold. They have financial reason to suppress any research that would impact their livelihood.

I think it's been posted several times already, but the reason we don't have good research on this topic is that gun advocates have helped to block funding for good research. I think that we all would agree that removing this roadblock would be beneficial for the debate.

Blocked funding for government research. Not good research. Good research exists, and is published. Most extensive research ever done on the topic in the world.

Not true, the data now comes ONLY from biased sources.

A bias does not render a source 'not good'. All sources are biased, especially government funded ones. The Repubs recognize that such a bias would be contrary to their objectives, so they block it. So what? They can't block privately funded research. Let Bloomberg spend his own money for the 'best' biased research he can afford.

Governmental funded data has been shown to have the least bias as a whole and bias can/does make data not good. To remove that shows a lack of wanting accurate knowledge.

In general, yes. With regard to politically charged subjects, no. That kind of bias research includes topics such as research into the biology of Kentucky Bluegrasses & the natural range of the American Cardinal; not exactly emotionally pr politically charged issues.

Actually no. Over multiple different fields, we (researchers) have shown that governmental funded research is least biased, this includes pharmaceuticals, psychology, every field I have ever checked as well as the in overall.

I think it's been posted several times already, but the reason we don't have good research on this topic is that gun advocates have helped to block funding for good research. I think that we all would agree that removing this roadblock would be beneficial for the debate.

I've never understood why people argue that there isn't good research available. The FBI numbers even include deaths by the "mass shootings" as well. Given that, the number of murders committed with firearms, even sorted by type of weapon seems rather good to me. Especially if you're looking to enact a ban on a certain type of weapon based on the misguided notion that that type of weapon is somehow being used on a more regular basis than others. It's not true, the data from the FBI doesn't support it, so arguing for it amounts to nothing more than fear mongering.

I think it's been posted several times already, but the reason we don't have good research on this topic is that gun advocates have helped to block funding for good research. I think that we all would agree that removing this roadblock would be beneficial for the debate.

I've never understood why people argue that there isn't good research available. The FBI numbers even include deaths by the "mass shootings" as well. Given that, the number of murders committed with firearms, even sorted by type of weapon seems rather good to me. Especially if you're looking to enact a ban on a certain type of weapon based on the misguided notion that that type of weapon is somehow being used on a more regular basis than others. It's not true, the data from the FBI doesn't support it, so arguing for it amounts to nothing more than fear mongering.

Because just a body count is a statistic in isolation. Trying to draw causation from correlation is not a scientific way to approach a complicated issue.

Proper research could quantify exactly what the effect of each type of weapon has on the general populace. It could identify if there are particular weapons (or particular attributes of weapons) that are unusually more dangerous or more often involved in crimes than others . . . and this works both ways. If AR15s aren't more dangerous, then it would clearly demonstrate the futility of trying to ban these weapons. It could demonstrate the effect of measures like ensuring a background check for all sales on a weapon, whether or not it makes sense to have regulation regarding gun storage, or what the effect of having a searchable database of gun owners would do for law enforcement.

I think it's been posted several times already, but the reason we don't have good research on this topic is that gun advocates have helped to block funding for good research. I think that we all would agree that removing this roadblock would be beneficial for the debate.

I've never understood why people argue that there isn't good research available. The FBI numbers even include deaths by the "mass shootings" as well. Given that, the number of murders committed with firearms, even sorted by type of weapon seems rather good to me. Especially if you're looking to enact a ban on a certain type of weapon based on the misguided notion that that type of weapon is somehow being used on a more regular basis than others. It's not true, the data from the FBI doesn't support it, so arguing for it amounts to nothing more than fear mongering.

Because just a body count is a statistic in isolation. Trying to draw causation from correlation is not a scientific way to approach a complicated issue.

Proper research could quantify exactly what the effect of each type of weapon has on the general populace. It could identify if there are particular weapons (or particular attributes of weapons) that are unusually more dangerous or more often involved in crimes than others . . . and this works both ways. If AR15s aren't more dangerous, then it would clearly demonstrate the futility of trying to ban these weapons. It could demonstrate the effect of measures like ensuring a background check for all sales on a weapon, whether or not it makes sense to have regulation regarding gun storage, or what the effect of having a searchable database of gun owners would do for law enforcement.

Would it not stand to reason that if something is unusually more dangerous and/or involved more in crimes, there would be a higher murder rate by that type of weapon? I'll grant you the other issues you mention regarding background checks, storage, etc. The FBI data will not give you the necessary information needed to make an informed conclusion regarding those topics. However, regarding banning a certain type of weapon because of how dangerous it is would and should be supported by data that reflects a higher rate of death by that type of weapon. The FBI data should be plenty good enough for that type of conclusion.

I think it's been posted several times already, but the reason we don't have good research on this topic is that gun advocates have helped to block funding for good research. I think that we all would agree that removing this roadblock would be beneficial for the debate.

I've never understood why people argue that there isn't good research available. The FBI numbers even include deaths by the "mass shootings" as well. Given that, the number of murders committed with firearms, even sorted by type of weapon seems rather good to me. Especially if you're looking to enact a ban on a certain type of weapon based on the misguided notion that that type of weapon is somehow being used on a more regular basis than others. It's not true, the data from the FBI doesn't support it, so arguing for it amounts to nothing more than fear mongering.

Because just a body count is a statistic in isolation. Trying to draw causation from correlation is not a scientific way to approach a complicated issue.

Proper research could quantify exactly what the effect of each type of weapon has on the general populace. It could identify if there are particular weapons (or particular attributes of weapons) that are unusually more dangerous or more often involved in crimes than others . . . and this works both ways. If AR15s aren't more dangerous, then it would clearly demonstrate the futility of trying to ban these weapons. It could demonstrate the effect of measures like ensuring a background check for all sales on a weapon, whether or not it makes sense to have regulation regarding gun storage, or what the effect of having a searchable database of gun owners would do for law enforcement.

Would it not stand to reason that if something is unusually more dangerous and/or involved more in crimes, there would be a higher murder rate by that type of weapon? I'll grant you the other issues you mention regarding background checks, storage, etc. The FBI data will not give you the necessary information needed to make an informed conclusion regarding those topics. However, regarding banning a certain type of weapon because of how dangerous it is would and should be supported by data that reflects a higher rate of death by that type of weapon. The FBI data should be plenty good enough for that type of conclusion.

Death rate isn't the be all end all because it doesn't tell the whole story.

What if one particular type of firearm turned out to cause 300% more deaths in the home than other similar firearms for example? Maybe an outright ban isn't the right way to go about things, when just a minor redesign could improve safety. Right now we don't know if there are particular designs of handguns/rifles/shotguns that are more dangerous.

There are very few cases I can think of where obstructing or occluding information leads to better informed decisions being made.

I think it's been posted several times already, but the reason we don't have good research on this topic is that gun advocates have helped to block funding for good research. I think that we all would agree that removing this roadblock would be beneficial for the debate.

I've never understood why people argue that there isn't good research available. The FBI numbers even include deaths by the "mass shootings" as well. Given that, the number of murders committed with firearms, even sorted by type of weapon seems rather good to me. Especially if you're looking to enact a ban on a certain type of weapon based on the misguided notion that that type of weapon is somehow being used on a more regular basis than others. It's not true, the data from the FBI doesn't support it, so arguing for it amounts to nothing more than fear mongering.

Because just a body count is a statistic in isolation. Trying to draw causation from correlation is not a scientific way to approach a complicated issue.

Proper research could quantify exactly what the effect of each type of weapon has on the general populace. It could identify if there are particular weapons (or particular attributes of weapons) that are unusually more dangerous or more often involved in crimes than others . . . and this works both ways. If AR15s aren't more dangerous, then it would clearly demonstrate the futility of trying to ban these weapons. It could demonstrate the effect of measures like ensuring a background check for all sales on a weapon, whether or not it makes sense to have regulation regarding gun storage, or what the effect of having a searchable database of gun owners would do for law enforcement.

Would it not stand to reason that if something is unusually more dangerous and/or involved more in crimes, there would be a higher murder rate by that type of weapon? I'll grant you the other issues you mention regarding background checks, storage, etc. The FBI data will not give you the necessary information needed to make an informed conclusion regarding those topics. However, regarding banning a certain type of weapon because of how dangerous it is would and should be supported by data that reflects a higher rate of death by that type of weapon. The FBI data should be plenty good enough for that type of conclusion.

Death rate isn't the be all end all because it doesn't tell the whole story.

What if one particular type of firearm turned out to cause 300% more deaths in the home than other similar firearms for example? Maybe an outright ban isn't the right way to go about things, when just a minor redesign could improve safety. Right now we don't know if there are particular designs of handguns/rifles/shotguns that are more dangerous.

There are very few cases I can think of where obstructing or occluding information leads to better informed decisions being made.

Nearly all firearm deaths are a result of misuse, not because of a design flaw in the firearm. What changes to a well functioning firearm could be done to stop people from either killing themselves or others?

I think it's been posted several times already, but the reason we don't have good research on this topic is that gun advocates have helped to block funding for good research. I think that we all would agree that removing this roadblock would be beneficial for the debate.

I've never understood why people argue that there isn't good research available. The FBI numbers even include deaths by the "mass shootings" as well. Given that, the number of murders committed with firearms, even sorted by type of weapon seems rather good to me. Especially if you're looking to enact a ban on a certain type of weapon based on the misguided notion that that type of weapon is somehow being used on a more regular basis than others. It's not true, the data from the FBI doesn't support it, so arguing for it amounts to nothing more than fear mongering.

Because just a body count is a statistic in isolation. Trying to draw causation from correlation is not a scientific way to approach a complicated issue.

Proper research could quantify exactly what the effect of each type of weapon has on the general populace. It could identify if there are particular weapons (or particular attributes of weapons) that are unusually more dangerous or more often involved in crimes than others . . . and this works both ways. If AR15s aren't more dangerous, then it would clearly demonstrate the futility of trying to ban these weapons. It could demonstrate the effect of measures like ensuring a background check for all sales on a weapon, whether or not it makes sense to have regulation regarding gun storage, or what the effect of having a searchable database of gun owners would do for law enforcement.

Would it not stand to reason that if something is unusually more dangerous and/or involved more in crimes, there would be a higher murder rate by that type of weapon? I'll grant you the other issues you mention regarding background checks, storage, etc. The FBI data will not give you the necessary information needed to make an informed conclusion regarding those topics. However, regarding banning a certain type of weapon because of how dangerous it is would and should be supported by data that reflects a higher rate of death by that type of weapon. The FBI data should be plenty good enough for that type of conclusion.

Death rate isn't the be all end all because it doesn't tell the whole story.

What if one particular type of firearm turned out to cause 300% more deaths in the home than other similar firearms for example? Maybe an outright ban isn't the right way to go about things, when just a minor redesign could improve safety. Right now we don't know if there are particular designs of handguns/rifles/shotguns that are more dangerous.

There are very few cases I can think of where obstructing or occluding information leads to better informed decisions being made.

Nearly all firearm deaths are a result of misuse, not because of a design flaw in the firearm. What changes to a well functioning firearm could be done to stop people from either killing themselves or others?

Without impacting effectiveness of the weapon in high-stress conditions. <-- the part most people miss

Death rate isn't the be all end all because it doesn't tell the whole story.

What if one particular type of firearm turned out to cause 300% more deaths in the home than other similar firearms for example? Maybe an outright ban isn't the right way to go about things, when just a minor redesign could improve safety. Right now we don't know if there are particular designs of handguns/rifles/shotguns that are more dangerous.

There are very few cases I can think of where obstructing or occluding information leads to better informed decisions being made.

Actually, we do know this. You don't. That's part of the point of it all. Most gun owners are also home owners, and parents. We do consider these things. Even in this respect, the AR-15 is one of the 'safest' of the class of military-grade, semi-automatic carbine rifles ever designed. You can't get the thing to fire when the safety is on. You could drop it from a rooftop, and you'd be more likely to bend the barrel than get it to fire. On the other hand, there are older designs of similar weapons that are not designed to 'fail-safe' (as in, if it fails; then it fails in a safe way). Some of such designs are of former soviet design. "Where is the safety?" "Safety? Is gun, is not safe!" Modern versions often have such safety devices, but I wouldn't own an AK-47, for example; and this is a contributing reason. I do own a Mosign-Nagant, and it's safe condition involves the physical removal of the bolt from the rifle; which is exactly how it spends most of it's existence in my home, usually with the bolt in the handgun safe.

And yes, we do have research data to support these kinds of decisions; but a lot of it is common sense once you have real knowledge about the nature of firearms generally, and the nature of the firearms you are considering in particular.

Even in this respect, the AR-15 is one of the 'safest' of the class of military-grade, semi-automatic carbine rifles ever designed. You can't get the thing to fire when the safety is on. You could drop it from a rooftop, and you'd be more likely to bend the barrel than get it to fire.

I'm fairly convinced you can hand an AR-15 to almost any non-gun person and they'd have no idea how to fire it (wouldn't know how to chamber the first round). This also makes it safer around children when stored in condition III.

I think it's been posted several times already, but the reason we don't have good research on this topic is that gun advocates have helped to block funding for good research. I think that we all would agree that removing this roadblock would be beneficial for the debate.

I've never understood why people argue that there isn't good research available. The FBI numbers even include deaths by the "mass shootings" as well. Given that, the number of murders committed with firearms, even sorted by type of weapon seems rather good to me. Especially if you're looking to enact a ban on a certain type of weapon based on the misguided notion that that type of weapon is somehow being used on a more regular basis than others. It's not true, the data from the FBI doesn't support it, so arguing for it amounts to nothing more than fear mongering.

Because just a body count is a statistic in isolation. Trying to draw causation from correlation is not a scientific way to approach a complicated issue.

Proper research could quantify exactly what the effect of each type of weapon has on the general populace. It could identify if there are particular weapons (or particular attributes of weapons) that are unusually more dangerous or more often involved in crimes than others . . . and this works both ways. If AR15s aren't more dangerous, then it would clearly demonstrate the futility of trying to ban these weapons. It could demonstrate the effect of measures like ensuring a background check for all sales on a weapon, whether or not it makes sense to have regulation regarding gun storage, or what the effect of having a searchable database of gun owners would do for law enforcement.

Would it not stand to reason that if something is unusually more dangerous and/or involved more in crimes, there would be a higher murder rate by that type of weapon? I'll grant you the other issues you mention regarding background checks, storage, etc. The FBI data will not give you the necessary information needed to make an informed conclusion regarding those topics. However, regarding banning a certain type of weapon because of how dangerous it is would and should be supported by data that reflects a higher rate of death by that type of weapon. The FBI data should be plenty good enough for that type of conclusion.

Death rate isn't the be all end all because it doesn't tell the whole story.

What if one particular type of firearm turned out to cause 300% more deaths in the home than other similar firearms for example? Maybe an outright ban isn't the right way to go about things, when just a minor redesign could improve safety. Right now we don't know if there are particular designs of handguns/rifles/shotguns that are more dangerous.

There are very few cases I can think of where obstructing or occluding information leads to better informed decisions being made.

I think we could bet that Glocks (the type of gun I carry, and its carried by more police and military organizations than any other handgun design on the market) are involved in more cases of negligent discharge injuries than other types of guns.

The reasons for this are technical in nature. The gun has no manual external safety, and the trigger must be pulled during disassembly. Gun owners know this. Its not a secret.

Again, it is probably involved in more "accidents" than any other single firearm design.

But civilian owners, police departments and militaries keep buying and using them because the benefits of the (excellent) design outweigh those issues. The people who own and use Glocks are capable of making that determination. A scientific study or outside party is not.

Right now we don't know if there are particular designs of handguns/rifles/shotguns that are more dangerous.

Quote from: Moonshadow

Actually, we do know this. You don't.

Great! You can enlighten me.

Can you provide some of the studies you've got that show how ownership of particular models of guns compare in around the home gun incidents? Or some studies that show which model and type of firearm is statistically more dangerous to own with young kids in the house?

Even in this respect, the AR-15 is one of the 'safest' of the class of military-grade, semi-automatic carbine rifles ever designed. You can't get the thing to fire when the safety is on. You could drop it from a rooftop, and you'd be more likely to bend the barrel than get it to fire.

I'm fairly convinced you can hand an AR-15 to almost any non-gun person and they'd have no idea how to fire it (wouldn't know how to chamber the first round). This also makes it safer around children when stored in condition III.

I think it's been posted several times already, but the reason we don't have good research on this topic is that gun advocates have helped to block funding for good research. I think that we all would agree that removing this roadblock would be beneficial for the debate.

I've never understood why people argue that there isn't good research available. The FBI numbers even include deaths by the "mass shootings" as well. Given that, the number of murders committed with firearms, even sorted by type of weapon seems rather good to me. Especially if you're looking to enact a ban on a certain type of weapon based on the misguided notion that that type of weapon is somehow being used on a more regular basis than others. It's not true, the data from the FBI doesn't support it, so arguing for it amounts to nothing more than fear mongering.

Because just a body count is a statistic in isolation. Trying to draw causation from correlation is not a scientific way to approach a complicated issue.

Proper research could quantify exactly what the effect of each type of weapon has on the general populace. It could identify if there are particular weapons (or particular attributes of weapons) that are unusually more dangerous or more often involved in crimes than others . . . and this works both ways. If AR15s aren't more dangerous, then it would clearly demonstrate the futility of trying to ban these weapons. It could demonstrate the effect of measures like ensuring a background check for all sales on a weapon, whether or not it makes sense to have regulation regarding gun storage, or what the effect of having a searchable database of gun owners would do for law enforcement.

Would it not stand to reason that if something is unusually more dangerous and/or involved more in crimes, there would be a higher murder rate by that type of weapon? I'll grant you the other issues you mention regarding background checks, storage, etc. The FBI data will not give you the necessary information needed to make an informed conclusion regarding those topics. However, regarding banning a certain type of weapon because of how dangerous it is would and should be supported by data that reflects a higher rate of death by that type of weapon. The FBI data should be plenty good enough for that type of conclusion.

Death rate isn't the be all end all because it doesn't tell the whole story.

What if one particular type of firearm turned out to cause 300% more deaths in the home than other similar firearms for example? Maybe an outright ban isn't the right way to go about things, when just a minor redesign could improve safety. Right now we don't know if there are particular designs of handguns/rifles/shotguns that are more dangerous.

There are very few cases I can think of where obstructing or occluding information leads to better informed decisions being made.

I think we could bet that Glocks (the type of gun I carry, and its carried by more police and military organizations than any other handgun design on the market) are involved in more cases of negligent discharge injuries than other types of guns.

The reasons for this are technical in nature. The gun has no manual external safety, and the trigger must be pulled during disassembly. Gun owners know this. Its not a secret.

Again, it is probably involved in more "accidents" than any other single firearm design.

But civilian owners, police departments and militaries keep buying and using them because the benefits of the (excellent) design outweigh those issues. The people who own and use Glocks are capable of making that determination. A scientific study or outside party is not.

What if I don't want to bet, I want to actually know. With measurable data?

I think it's been posted several times already, but the reason we don't have good research on this topic is that gun advocates have helped to block funding for good research. I think that we all would agree that removing this roadblock would be beneficial for the debate.

I've never understood why people argue that there isn't good research available. The FBI numbers even include deaths by the "mass shootings" as well. Given that, the number of murders committed with firearms, even sorted by type of weapon seems rather good to me. Especially if you're looking to enact a ban on a certain type of weapon based on the misguided notion that that type of weapon is somehow being used on a more regular basis than others. It's not true, the data from the FBI doesn't support it, so arguing for it amounts to nothing more than fear mongering.

Because just a body count is a statistic in isolation. Trying to draw causation from correlation is not a scientific way to approach a complicated issue.

Proper research could quantify exactly what the effect of each type of weapon has on the general populace. It could identify if there are particular weapons (or particular attributes of weapons) that are unusually more dangerous or more often involved in crimes than others . . . and this works both ways. If AR15s aren't more dangerous, then it would clearly demonstrate the futility of trying to ban these weapons. It could demonstrate the effect of measures like ensuring a background check for all sales on a weapon, whether or not it makes sense to have regulation regarding gun storage, or what the effect of having a searchable database of gun owners would do for law enforcement.

Would it not stand to reason that if something is unusually more dangerous and/or involved more in crimes, there would be a higher murder rate by that type of weapon? I'll grant you the other issues you mention regarding background checks, storage, etc. The FBI data will not give you the necessary information needed to make an informed conclusion regarding those topics. However, regarding banning a certain type of weapon because of how dangerous it is would and should be supported by data that reflects a higher rate of death by that type of weapon. The FBI data should be plenty good enough for that type of conclusion.

Death rate isn't the be all end all because it doesn't tell the whole story.

What if one particular type of firearm turned out to cause 300% more deaths in the home than other similar firearms for example? Maybe an outright ban isn't the right way to go about things, when just a minor redesign could improve safety. Right now we don't know if there are particular designs of handguns/rifles/shotguns that are more dangerous.

There are very few cases I can think of where obstructing or occluding information leads to better informed decisions being made.

I think we could bet that Glocks (the type of gun I carry, and its carried by more police and military organizations than any other handgun design on the market) are involved in more cases of negligent discharge injuries than other types of guns.

The reasons for this are technical in nature. The gun has no manual external safety, and the trigger must be pulled during disassembly. Gun owners know this. Its not a secret.

Again, it is probably involved in more "accidents" than any other single firearm design.

But civilian owners, police departments and militaries keep buying and using them because the benefits of the (excellent) design outweigh those issues. The people who own and use Glocks are capable of making that determination. A scientific study or outside party is not.

What if I don't want to bet, I want to actually know. With measurable data?

*Shrug*

Then I guess you could commission a study to find out. It would be expensive and time consuming. And in the end, I am 99 percent sure the answer would be "Glock handguns are the mostly likely to be involved in an injury resulting from a negligent discharge." And all that time and money would have been wasted.

Doubly so, since the community of gun users would say "We already knew that. This study isn't going to change our behavior."

I think it's been posted several times already, but the reason we don't have good research on this topic is that gun advocates have helped to block funding for good research. I think that we all would agree that removing this roadblock would be beneficial for the debate.

I've never understood why people argue that there isn't good research available. The FBI numbers even include deaths by the "mass shootings" as well. Given that, the number of murders committed with firearms, even sorted by type of weapon seems rather good to me. Especially if you're looking to enact a ban on a certain type of weapon based on the misguided notion that that type of weapon is somehow being used on a more regular basis than others. It's not true, the data from the FBI doesn't support it, so arguing for it amounts to nothing more than fear mongering.

Because just a body count is a statistic in isolation. Trying to draw causation from correlation is not a scientific way to approach a complicated issue.

Proper research could quantify exactly what the effect of each type of weapon has on the general populace. It could identify if there are particular weapons (or particular attributes of weapons) that are unusually more dangerous or more often involved in crimes than others . . . and this works both ways. If AR15s aren't more dangerous, then it would clearly demonstrate the futility of trying to ban these weapons. It could demonstrate the effect of measures like ensuring a background check for all sales on a weapon, whether or not it makes sense to have regulation regarding gun storage, or what the effect of having a searchable database of gun owners would do for law enforcement.

Would it not stand to reason that if something is unusually more dangerous and/or involved more in crimes, there would be a higher murder rate by that type of weapon? I'll grant you the other issues you mention regarding background checks, storage, etc. The FBI data will not give you the necessary information needed to make an informed conclusion regarding those topics. However, regarding banning a certain type of weapon because of how dangerous it is would and should be supported by data that reflects a higher rate of death by that type of weapon. The FBI data should be plenty good enough for that type of conclusion.

Death rate isn't the be all end all because it doesn't tell the whole story.

What if one particular type of firearm turned out to cause 300% more deaths in the home than other similar firearms for example? Maybe an outright ban isn't the right way to go about things, when just a minor redesign could improve safety. Right now we don't know if there are particular designs of handguns/rifles/shotguns that are more dangerous.

There are very few cases I can think of where obstructing or occluding information leads to better informed decisions being made.

I think we could bet that Glocks (the type of gun I carry, and its carried by more police and military organizations than any other handgun design on the market) are involved in more cases of negligent discharge injuries than other types of guns.

The reasons for this are technical in nature. The gun has no manual external safety, and the trigger must be pulled during disassembly. Gun owners know this. Its not a secret.

Again, it is probably involved in more "accidents" than any other single firearm design.

But civilian owners, police departments and militaries keep buying and using them because the benefits of the (excellent) design outweigh those issues. The people who own and use Glocks are capable of making that determination. A scientific study or outside party is not.

Yup, of note, I am not willing to own a Glock because I don't like this feature. I am a Springfield XD man instead (has a grip safety). I don't begrudge anyone for wanting or owning a Glock, but it is an example of a knowledgeable gun owner choosing not to buy a model he is not comfortable with the featureset of.

I think it's been posted several times already, but the reason we don't have good research on this topic is that gun advocates have helped to block funding for good research. I think that we all would agree that removing this roadblock would be beneficial for the debate.

I've never understood why people argue that there isn't good research available. The FBI numbers even include deaths by the "mass shootings" as well. Given that, the number of murders committed with firearms, even sorted by type of weapon seems rather good to me. Especially if you're looking to enact a ban on a certain type of weapon based on the misguided notion that that type of weapon is somehow being used on a more regular basis than others. It's not true, the data from the FBI doesn't support it, so arguing for it amounts to nothing more than fear mongering.

Because just a body count is a statistic in isolation. Trying to draw causation from correlation is not a scientific way to approach a complicated issue.

Proper research could quantify exactly what the effect of each type of weapon has on the general populace. It could identify if there are particular weapons (or particular attributes of weapons) that are unusually more dangerous or more often involved in crimes than others . . . and this works both ways. If AR15s aren't more dangerous, then it would clearly demonstrate the futility of trying to ban these weapons. It could demonstrate the effect of measures like ensuring a background check for all sales on a weapon, whether or not it makes sense to have regulation regarding gun storage, or what the effect of having a searchable database of gun owners would do for law enforcement.

Would it not stand to reason that if something is unusually more dangerous and/or involved more in crimes, there would be a higher murder rate by that type of weapon? I'll grant you the other issues you mention regarding background checks, storage, etc. The FBI data will not give you the necessary information needed to make an informed conclusion regarding those topics. However, regarding banning a certain type of weapon because of how dangerous it is would and should be supported by data that reflects a higher rate of death by that type of weapon. The FBI data should be plenty good enough for that type of conclusion.

Death rate isn't the be all end all because it doesn't tell the whole story.

What if one particular type of firearm turned out to cause 300% more deaths in the home than other similar firearms for example? Maybe an outright ban isn't the right way to go about things, when just a minor redesign could improve safety. Right now we don't know if there are particular designs of handguns/rifles/shotguns that are more dangerous.

There are very few cases I can think of where obstructing or occluding information leads to better informed decisions being made.

I think we could bet that Glocks (the type of gun I carry, and its carried by more police and military organizations than any other handgun design on the market) are involved in more cases of negligent discharge injuries than other types of guns.

The reasons for this are technical in nature. The gun has no manual external safety, and the trigger must be pulled during disassembly. Gun owners know this. Its not a secret.

Again, it is probably involved in more "accidents" than any other single firearm design.

But civilian owners, police departments and militaries keep buying and using them because the benefits of the (excellent) design outweigh those issues. The people who own and use Glocks are capable of making that determination. A scientific study or outside party is not.

Yup, of note, I am not willing to own a Glock because I don't like this feature. I am a Springfield XD man instead (has a grip safety). I don't begrudge anyone for wanting or owning a Glock, but it is an example of a knowledgeable gun owner choosing not to buy a model he is not comfortable with the featureset of.

What if I don't want to bet, I want to actually know. With measurable data?

If a study is done and in concludes firearm X is used in X percent of deaths in the home or something to that effect. Then what? Would you possibly support banning that particular firearm?

Maybe.

It would work both ways too. Evidence of it's safety would make a strong case to give up on attempts to ban the AR15 (since this seems to be a popular example).

There's no evidence of its danger, yet because it's an evil black rifle (in other words, it "looks scary") bans are continually attempted. I'm not sure that logic is present with these attempts at all.

I think it's been posted several times already, but the reason we don't have good research on this topic is that gun advocates have helped to block funding for good research. I think that we all would agree that removing this roadblock would be beneficial for the debate.

I've never understood why people argue that there isn't good research available. The FBI numbers even include deaths by the "mass shootings" as well. Given that, the number of murders committed with firearms, even sorted by type of weapon seems rather good to me. Especially if you're looking to enact a ban on a certain type of weapon based on the misguided notion that that type of weapon is somehow being used on a more regular basis than others. It's not true, the data from the FBI doesn't support it, so arguing for it amounts to nothing more than fear mongering.

No, I'm saying that the ban makes getting good/less biased data hard. One group which was able to do a respective study said: "Firearms account for a substantial proportion of external causes of death, injury, and disability across the world.Legislation to regulate firearms has often been passed with the intent of reducing problems related to their use.However, lack of clarity around which interventions are effective remains a major challenge for policy development.Aiming to meet this challenge, we systematically reviewed studies exploring the associations between firearmrelatedlaws and firearm homicides, suicides, and unintentional injuries/deaths. We restricted our search to studiespublished from 1950 to 2014. Evidence from 130 studies in 10 countries suggests that in certain nations the simultaneousimplementation of laws targeting multiple firearms restrictions is associated with reductions in firearmdeaths. Laws restricting the purchase of (e.g., background checks) and access to (e.g., safer storage) firearmsare also associated with lower rates of intimate partner homicides and firearm unintentional deaths in children, respectively.Limitations of studies include challenges inherent to their ecological design, their execution, and the lackof robustness of findings to model specifications. High quality research on the association between the implementationor repeal of firearm legislation (rather than the evaluation of existing laws) and firearm injuries would lead to abetter understanding of what interventions are likely to work given local contexts. This information is key to move thisfield forward and for the development of effective policies that may counteract the burden that firearm injuries poseon populations."